Talk:Charles III of Britain (The Two Georges)
What happened to Elizabeth?Turtle Fan 22:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC) Not sure. I am not 100% that it's OTL Charles, but HT and Richard Dreyfus were more interested in having fun in this one than being plausible, and OTL characters did abound, plus the description fit Charles to a T. Maybe Charles was deemed to be more responsible than in OTL and Elizabth stepped aside. TR 22:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC) See first paragraph here: Talk:Titus Hackett. However, I am comfortable leaving this article alone since, TR is correct on it's tweeness. ML4E 23:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC) :In the interest of accuracy, I went ahead and changed it. TR 00:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC) Awww. Oh well, I can live with accuracy too. ML4E 21:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC) Rumors about Charles, Prince of Wales I guess it's been floated that Charles, rather than reign as Charles III, may opt for George VII. TR 00:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC) :His name is George? News to me. ::No, it's Charles. I guess there is a feeling that Kings named George have been more successful than those named Charles. TR 00:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC) :::So he's just going to make up a new name out of nowhere? If he's going down that road, why not be a Richard or a Henry? They both had better track records than George. :::George III was not successful. Turtle Fan 03:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC) ::::This isn't unheard of. It was a Prince Albert who became George VI, after all. Same thing with Edward VII. And anyways "George" is part of Charles' full name. Jelay14 22:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC) :::::Ah, I didn't realize there was a George in his full name. That would make some sense. Most British monarchs continue to use their given names when assuming the throne, though in other monarchies it's a given that they will take a new name. Turtle Fan 02:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC) :Most of my admittedly small circle of British friends is of the opinion that he should face the fact that the ship long ago sailed on his chance to make an imprint on royal history and withdraw from succession altogether. Though he's gotten more personable since Diana's death, to their minds he continues to represent the small-minded, stodgy, insecure, arrogant royal who never got over the idea that he's not going to have a real job to do in the governing of the realm. They believe the ground has shifted under him and he will only erode support for the monarchy. William, on the other hand, is exactly what the new generation needs in its ceremonial head of state: a man of the people, genuinely loving his country and able to be loved by it, modest enough not to want to overstep his bounds, humanitarian, secure enough in his figurehead role to use the ceremonial prestige of the kingship to accomplish good things for the people that the politicians won't be able to. Turtle Fan 02:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC) ::I remember about the late 80s early 90s some speculation that Elizbeth might find a way to bypass Charles for William once William was of age. But that was when everyone really hated Charles, so I don't think there was any factual or legal basis for this idea. :::I don't think it would come from Elizabeth. Besides, while she does command a certain amount of reverence based on the fact that all but the most elderly Brits consider her part of the furniture, she's of the same old school that the ascension of William over Charles would undercut. :::I do remember a rumor that Edward VIII's descendants were getting ready to lobby MPs to name one of them King if Charles wasn't skipped. They said that if his marital scandals don't disqualify him from the throne, then neither do their forbears'. Turtle Fan 03:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC) ::Incidentally, someone wrote a book about 2002 allegeding (quite seriously) that Charles was indeed the anti-Christ. I happened to be chanel surfing some religious radio and came across it. TR 00:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC) :::No kidding. Sounds bemusingly dumb. :::I have heard Anglicans express concern that they feel his Christian faith is too weak, and his interest in eastern religions too strong, for him to be fit to head the Church of England. Turtle Fan 03:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC) :::By the way, TR, I notice that your edit, which ends discussing the Antichrist, added 666 letters to this page. Turtle Fan 03:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC) ::::Huh. That's quite the coincidence. TR 00:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC) :::::Or a sign of things to come if you don't clean up your act. :P Turtle Fan 02:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC) Another Charles III of Britain? It occurs to me that Supervolcano could very well give us another Charles III. TR 19:14, January 20, 2011 (UTC) :Yes. As you've said elsewhere, it would probably be left to us to read between the lines: The King; the long-faced monarch; he'd managed to build an elder statesman image that won over British respect, if not affection, since his youth, when he'd angered the entire nation by running around on his very popular wife, now some years dead. If we get anything like that, I move we simply call him Charles III instead of pussyfooting around. Turtle Fan 00:12, January 21, 2011 (UTC) Character Template Should the template be changed so Edward IX of Britain is listed as his parent? ML4E 21:01, October 5, 2011 (UTC) :I don't see there being enough evidence to say so definitively. Turtle Fan 01:27, October 6, 2011 (UTC) True but there is an equal lack of evidence that Edward VIII is his father as the article had listed. I see TR changed it with a question mark. That seems to be the more reasonable approach since we do have an Edward IX preceding Charles III. ML4E 00:12, October 7, 2011 (UTC) :I suppose. He could have been a nephew every bit as easily as he could have been a son, though it is safe to assume he was some sort of close relation. Turtle Fan 01:46, October 7, 2011 (UTC) Fictional Monarchs' Titles I'm wondering if we should change how we title articles on fictional monarchs of real kingdoms (fictional characters, that is, not historical figures who are only monarchs in fictional ATLs, like Infanta Isabella of Spain). What I have in mind is similar to what we do with any fictional character for whom we don't have a first and last name: append the name of the story in parentheses, ie, "Charles III of Britain (The Two Georges)." I feel this would add a level of clarity that's missing when you look at certain categories and see historical and fictional monarchs mixed in together. Turtle Fan (talk) 03:17, January 27, 2015 (UTC) :As it is more likely than not that there will be a real Charles III who is NOT this guy, yes, we should move this one and review other fictional monarchs. TR (talk) 17:05, January 27, 2015 (UTC) :I have no strong feelings, one way or the other, so do what you think is best. I will say that "Charles III of Britain (The Two Georges)" seems verbose and so suggest that the name be "Charles III (The Two Georges)" but don't advocate it. ML4E (talk) 17:15, January 27, 2015 (UTC) ::Since "Charles III of Britain" will remain as a redirect, the new full title will be used very rarely. I'm going to try just adding "(T2G)" and seeing how it goes. If you're right and it becomes unwieldy, we can always change it. Turtle Fan (talk) 04:13, January 30, 2015 (UTC)